is there any actuall proff that saville did what he's been accused of? all i've heard in the last few months is people saying this and that but without any evidence.

Well I've heard a former member of the Crown Prosecution Service say recently he had no doubt Savile would have been convicted in a court of law and received a lengthy prison sentence.

Victim testimony can be accepted as strong evidence in a court....you don't necessarily have to have concrete physical proof to back up your testimony in cases dating back decades. It's up to the jury to decide if you are a compelling witness or not.

is there any actuall proff that saville did what he's been accused of? all i've heard in the last few months is people saying this and that but without any evidence.

Why do people still persist in this theory he might be innocent when it's been recognised that he was a persistent predatory paedophile?

The man is dead, that doesn't mean to say he's innocent. Yes, in a case like this there'll be a few nitwits who'll say anything to be in the papers, but as the police and prosecution services seem to think Savile was an abuser on the evidence of hundreds of people who've come forward that's good enough for me and most people I'd imagine.

I get the feeling some people wouldn't be convinced even if there was documentary evidence of him molesting a child. Even then, a few of that number would go on to argue that it was somehow 'staged' or open to interpretation.

Amongst all those who have come forward now, there will be a few who exaggerate or lie about their experience (or lack thereof) of JS and his proclivities. That's to be expected. Not all of these will be doing it for money....some will be doing so for attention. These will be very much in the minority and it should never detract from those who were genuinely violated by this man and had to live with the consequences of never seeing him brought to account while he lived.

I get the feeling some people wouldn't be convinced even if there was documentary evidence of him molesting a child. Even then, a few of that number would go on to argue that it was somehow 'staged' or open to interpretation.

Amongst all those who have come forward now, there will be a few who exaggerate or lie about their experience (or lack thereof) of JS and his proclivities. That's to be expected. Not all of these will be doing it for money....some will be doing so for attention. These will be very much in the minority and it should never detract from those who were genuinely violated by this man and had to live with the consequences of never seeing him brought to account while he lived.

Most of those people would be found out by the police or if it actually went to court.

Given the sheer number of complaints against Savile, the idea that they're all lying or exaggerating seems extremely far fetched.

I don't think loonattic was trying to imply that JS is innocent. I too would like to know how it is that the police suddenly became so confident of his guilt that they publicly called him a prolific abuser. Anybody can say anything, but you do need proof, and it would be interesting to know what it was that tipped the scales from him not being charged with anything to being pronounced guilty.There was no trial or public explanation as is usual in British courts.

I don't think loonattic was trying to imply that JS is innocent. I too would like to know how it is that the police suddenly became so confident of his guilt that they publicly called him a prolific abuser. Anybody can say anything, but you do need proof, and it would be interesting to know what it was that tipped the scales from him not being charged with anything to being pronounced guilty.There was no trial or public explanation as is usual in British courts.

I am NOT saying he is not guilty of being a child molester.

It seems as if they established an MO with the varying allegations all being quite similar and talk of a 'Jimmy's move' he used alot, or something similar. In the report that I've seen, they say they have no reason to believe the few women who first came forward to lodge a complaint that led to them questioning him in 2009 (I think?) had known about each other beforehand or otherwise were aware of their stories - infact they were mistakenly not told about the other accusations/allegations, so presumably thought they were the only one to make such an allegation against him.

If they believe the first few women who came forward for the ITV documentary then that may, presumably, have been enough to get a conviction - those accusations were what sparked off the scandal and led to the 100s of other accusations, it was before it was all over the press and others could have more easily made fabricated stories based on what was in the press. He should probably have been charged/prosecuted for the original claims but it sounds like they uncovered a bit of a catalogue of errors in the original investigation which is why they didn't - mainly that if the individual women had known of each others existence, they would have been alot more likely to agree to pursue the charges.

Has anyone made the correlation between big cigars and ahem. Freud said that 'sometimes' a cigar is just a cigar, but in the case of JS it could be power and Godfather glory along with obvious phallic symbol.

Weird how in that interview he peeled a banana and ate it. Presumably he wasn't allowed his cigar.

Why do people still persist in this theory he might be innocent when it's been recognised that he was a persistent predatory paedophile?

The man is dead, that doesn't mean to say he's innocent. Yes, in a case like this there'll be a few nitwits who'll say anything to be in the papers, but as the police and prosecution services seem to think Savile was an abuser on the evidence of hundreds of people who've come forward that's good enough for me and most people I'd imagine.

To say that out of all these hundreds or thousands of people that have come forward since 11/2012 not one single one came forward in his 50 +years 'reign of terror' remains totally ludicrous.
To also say out all those people thay were all too scared to come forward is also ludicrious when two 8 year old girls sent actor Peter Adamson to court in the 1980s.

As for the police saying "he groomed a nation" is quite pathetic because if it were true what the hell were they doing?

I don't think loonattic was trying to imply that JS is innocent. I too would like to know how it is that the police suddenly became so confident of his guilt that they publicly called him a prolific abuser. Anybody can say anything, but you do need proof, and it would be interesting to know what it was that tipped the scales from him not being charged with anything to being pronounced guilty.There was no trial or public explanation as is usual in British courts.

I am NOT saying he is not guilty of being a child molester.

I'd say they're basing their opinion on the evidence they have collated, in other words they are more than satisfied there would have been enough evidence for Savile to have been found guilty and sent down for a lengthy period.

It's obvious that if Savile was alive now and the current allegations were out there, he would be facing multiple child abuse charges with practically zero chance of being acquitted.

To say that out of all these hundreds or thousands of people that have come forward since 11/2012 not one single one came forward in his 50 +years 'reign of terror' remains totally ludicrous.
To also say out all those people thay were all too scared to come forward is also ludicrious when two 8 year old girls sent actor Peter Adamson to court in the 1980s.

As for the police saying "he groomed a nation" is quite pathetic because if it were true what the hell were they doing?

Perhaps the children who told the police about Peter Adamson were encouraged to come forward and tell their stories by their parents, we don't know. Every case is different.

Savile was a very well known figure with connections to Royalty and politicians, and he used this fact to threaten people. I know personally of one person who was actually threatened with death by him if he told of what he knew.

To say he 'groomed a nation' is true. After all, who'd have actually believed that a man whose programme featured mainly children and young people, and who was so involved in 'charitable works' would have been capable of such perversions?

Perhaps the children who told the police about Peter Adamson were encouraged to come forward and tell their stories by their parents, we don't know. Every case is different.

Savile was a very well known figure with connections to Royalty and politicians, and he used this fact to threaten people. I know personally of one person who was actually threatened with death by him if he told of what he knew.

To say he 'groomed a nation' is true. After all, who'd have actually believed that a man whose programme featured mainly children and young people, and who was so involved in 'charitable works' would have been capable of such perversions?

He was hiding in plain sight. An apparent kindly uncle type who loved making childrens' wishes come true along with his extensive and well publicised charity work.....it was a definite case of an entire nation being conned or "groomed".

He was hiding in plain sight. An apparent kindly uncle type who loved making childrens' wishes come true along with his extensive and well publicised charity work.....it was a definite case of an entire nation being conned or "groomed".

Well I've heard a former member of the Crown Prosecution Service say recently he had no doubt Savile would have been convicted in a court of law and received a lengthy prison sentence.

Victim testimony can be accepted as strong evidence in a court....you don't necessarily have to have concrete physical proof to back up your testimony in cases dating back decades. It's up to the jury to decide if you are a compelling witness or not.

I believe that former member of the CPS had been involved in a prosecution that collapsed in court, because witnesses had colluded together. So he may be out to redeem himself ?

Another CPS lawyer who actually handled the case in 2009, rightly or wrongly decided there was not sufficient evidence to bring a successful proscecution.

I don't have a problem with the police investigating claims of abuse, but reading the NSPCC/Police report they begin by assuming all claims are true which will colour how they make their investigations.

The police are about collecting evidence to support a prosecution it is that one sided evidence on which the CPS makes a judgement that a prosecution is likely to be successful.

If it was that simple to prove a case why bother having court cases where both sides can produce their evidence?

I can sort of understand how victims were more likely to keep quiet in the past when there was no internet to bring them together. When they were likely to think they were alone in the abuse they'd suffered.

In hindsight this day was coming and Savile was lucky to die before they finally came out. What I'd like to know is what started the ball rolling on the ITV documentary? Was it simply that he was dead and therefore unable to sue? Would they have attempted anything if JS had still been alive?

To say that out of all these hundreds or thousands of people that have come forward since 11/2012 not one single one came forward in his 50 +years 'reign of terror' remains totally ludicrous.
To also say out all those people thay were all too scared to come forward is also ludicrious when two 8 year old girls sent actor Peter Adamson to court in the 1980s.

As for the police saying "he groomed a nation" is quite pathetic because if it were true what the hell were they doing?

Yes, it IS all a bit ludicrous, isn't it... but it does suggest that 'people' didn't want him exposed while alive because of who else he might bring down with him. Dead men don't talk. It's the only explanation that makes sense imo and the one that makes me very cynical about these 'investigations' and their findings.

I can sort of understand how victims were more likely to keep quiet in the past when there was no internet to bring them together. When they were likely to think they were alone in the abuse they'd suffered.

In hindsight this day was coming and Savile was lucky to die before they finally came out. What I'd like to know is what started the ball rolling on the ITV documentary? Was it simply that he was dead and therefore unable to sue? Would they have attempted anything if JS had still been alive?

If im remembering correctly, it all started with the original Newsnight investigation in 2011, in which Karin Ward came forward to talk about what happened, partly because she was due to get surgery and she wasn't sure she'd pull through, she wanted to help the story break but knew she may not be there to witness the after effects so that somehow gave her more confidence to go ahead and take part (there's an article that states as much, I remember reading last year). That show ended up being canned but MWT caught wind of it and basically continued it, making it into the ITV Exposure documentary, getting Karin to take part in that show as well as a few others - I think thats it?. It all started after he died though, yes, as far as im aware.

If the death threats are true (let alone connections he had) it wouldn't surprise me if they wouldn't have felt they could say anything - some people would find it hard enough to speak to the police about it, let alone talk to the press or media. It sounds like he had the internet or at least a computer at one point a few years ago, so I wonder if he checked for people talking about such things online and somehow threatened them online as well? the internet has been around for quite a while...people could have possibly talked about it here but there's at least one article where someone said they saw a PC switched on in his flat and he claimed to know how many websites there were about him, so maybe he did check what was being said and threatened people who tried to talk up? or warned them off making charges? I have no idea. I have heard that he made it clear if anyone pressed charges, he'd go to the Old Bailey and have the best team possible to fight his case ie. you'll have a very tough time getting a conviction, good luck with that :-/

Also, didn't the police tell some alleged victims that they couldn't keep their names anonymous, only to have to admit recently that, that was a lie and they would have been perfectly entitled to have their name made anonymous?.